Page 568 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not the case when it comes to proposals that they themselves put forward. For example, the Greens have been very clear that there will be a trial on a levy for plastic bags in the ACT and it will commence by the middle of the year. No consultation on that! Is this the most appropriate way to deal with plastic bag waste? Is a trial sensible, given the other issues that are at play and the experience in other jurisdictions? No, that is the idea and that is what we are going to do. What is the difference?
The Labor Party went to the election and said, “This is what we believe needs to be done in relation to murder.” We drafted the bill; we introduced the bill. On the same day as the bill was introduced and made public, I provided a copy to every important key stakeholder with an interest: the Bar Association, the Law Society, the DPP, the Chief Police Officer, the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, Civil Liberties Australia. I think that is the lot. On the same day I made the bill public, I said, “I would welcome your views and I would like your feedback.” If anything, a number of those stakeholders did not provide their feedback until this week or the last couple of weeks.
I think the critique from Mr Rattenbury is flawed because he seems to think that it is not acceptable for the government to put forward a proposal that it went to the election on but it is acceptable for the Greens to insist upon those things happening where it is a proposal that they put forward during the election. I think that approach is inconsistent, to say the least.
Returning to the motion and the amendment, seven months seems to be an inordinately long period of time to conduct an inquiry of this type. Four-and-a-half months, I would suggest, is plenty of time to do that work. The issues are not new. There will be a range of views on both sides in relation to them and I am confident that, in a community such as the ACT where people are very adept at putting their views to paper and making their opinions known, 4½ months is not going to compromise their ability to do so. So I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (8.48): I have a couple of quick comments. I cannot let the opportunity pass to make the somewhat ironic observation that the Attorney-General put up the issue of plastic bags which he did say was in the Greens/ALP agreement. The interesting part of that story is that 24 hours after the minister was appointed to his portfolio he put out a press release that the government is driving forward with the plastic bag trial, without even consulting with the Greens over a matter that was in our own agreement. So I think it is an amusing example that the Attorney-General picks to try to make his political point.
Night sittings are turning out to be an interesting experiment. On the issue of the timing of the reporting date, the discussions are going on. I have not put forward a formal amendment yet, but I flag—and I can put this in writing—that we would be prepared to, or Mrs Dunne might like to, look at an earlier time frame. But I think it is most important that those on the committee propose a date that they find amenable to their workload, given that they already have a number of inquiries. I do not think we can do it by June but I think there is probably some period we can find that accelerates the process, probably quite not to the timetable Mr Corbell is suggesting.
Question put:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .